MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Robert Morrissey

Follow by RSS

Morrissey pushes funding for small craft harbours in coastal communities and changes that streamline national trade corridors, arguing that infrastructure underpins economic and social life in rural Canada. He often builds arguments by walking through how a bill came to be, saying, “I want to begin by looking at the journey of how we arrived here.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A
90 / 100 over 6 statements
Signal 84 / 100
Relevance 82 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 99 / 100
Averaged over the 6 of 10 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Statements 10

Statements by Members ·

Small Craft Harbours

“Our government gave nearly 1 billion dollars to fix small craft harbours, the most money they have ever received. These harbours drive our coastal economy and needed funding for years. I am disappointed that most Conservatives voted against this money, even those from fishing towns.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have been raised in a small fishing community on P.E.I. The fishing harbour is the centre of the community. Last week, I was in another fishing community, Miminegash, to announce a major reconstruction of the fishing harbour, the largest project ever announced for this coastal community. For too many years, small craft harbours, the economic engines of coastal communities, have been underfunded by governments. I will express some disappointment that most members of the Conservative opposition, including those representing fishing communities, voted against the nearly $1-billion budget allocation in April, the largest budget ever for small craft harbours. I want to express my thanks to the Prime Minister and my Atlantic caucus colleagues, who lobbied for and supported this major budget allocation. The Prime Minister recognized the economic value of the fishing sector, and his support was invaluable.

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Pauline Rochefort

“The Confederation Bridge was a huge project built during a recession with private and public money. It finished ahead of schedule and is still in great shape today. It shows what Canada can do when all levels of government work together.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it was interesting. The project was a megaproject advanced at the time by a Progressive Conservative government that at the time was building interest in building the country during a recessionary period. It was innovative. It was private-public partnering, one of the first major megaprojects in the country that was privately and publicly funded. The key points of the project stand the test today. The latest engineering on it shows that the bridge is still in almost 100% condition like the day it was built. It was built ahead of schedule. It was built on time. It shows what we can do in this country when all levels of government choose to work together and put the interests of the nation ahead of the requirements that it takes to deliver those particular projects.

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“The government needs to keep our economy strong so we can pay for the social programs Canadians rely on. Governing means doing this work, not just complaining.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the government has a responsibility to ensure that the economy of the country performs at a level that Canadians expect, to support the many social programs we have in place that Canadians cherish. That is the role of governing. I prefer the government to govern. Some simply complain.

In response to a question from Dave Epp

“We think carefully about our choices to make sure they help the whole country and our economy. We do that whenever we make decisions or propose new laws.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, all situations require the government to reflect, with a thoughtful approach, to arrive at a decision that meets the needs of the country and the Canadian economy at all levels. The government takes that into consideration when making those decisions and when proposing new legislative changes as well.

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will speed up approvals for major transport projects, cut duplicate paperwork, and strengthen our supply chains without lowering environmental standards.”
  • A repeated line

    “That is how we build Canada strong.”

    Said 20 times by 14 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak in support of Bill C-39. Over the past several years, Canadians have witnessed how quickly events beyond our borders can affect our economy at home. A conflict on the other side of the world can disrupt energy markets. A shortage of shipping capacity can increase costs for Canadian businesses. A disruption to a rail line, highway or port can affect producers and consumers on both ends of the supply chain. In the face of these global realities, our government was elected on a firm commitment to reinforcing Canada’s economic sovereignty and empowering our country to build bigger, stronger and faster. Our supply chains, built on ports, railways, roads and the great workers who keep them moving, are the backbone of our economy. By extension, strong supply chains are imperative to our government’s ambitious plan to double non-U.S. exports, build major projects and attract record investment. At its core, the building Canada strong act is all about strengthening our supply chains. This ambitious piece of legislation would create stronger supply chains by taking steps toward treating Canada’s transportation system as an integrated national trade network rather than as a collection of separate pieces. The bill would enable the federal government to formally designate national trade corridors and establish performance measures for them. That means looking at the movement of goods across an entire corridor, identifying where delays and capacity constraints occur and measuring how the system is performing. The bill would also create the national trade corridors council. Its role would be to monitor the movement of goods, analyze disruptions affecting trade corridors, identify areas around the system where the system is not performing as it should and provide recommendations to the Minister of Transport. As we invest in our trade infrastructure, these measures would ensure that those investments are directed toward the places where they would have the greatest impact. This is about moving from a fragmented approach to an integrated transportation system, and the reliability of our trade corridors has a real impact. A congested port can mean additional storage costs. A lack of rail capacity can mean grain sitting in elevators rather than moving to market. Our government’s objective is straightforward: streamlining our trade corridors to eliminate bottlenecks and ensure Canadians and Canadian products can get to their destination. The second major piece is our ports. Canadian port authorities sit at some of the most important gateways in our economy. Bill C-39 would modernize their governance and give them greater commercial and financial flexibility to invest, generate revenue and expand the infrastructure needed to support trade. It would create new indigenous advisory councils, recognizing that indigenous communities are important partners in the development and operation of Canada’s transportation infrastructure. Importantly, this bill would uphold the role of ports as non-profit organizations and would create more opportunities for partnerships and capital projects through enhanced flexibility. However, infrastructure is only part of the challenge. The other part is the regulatory system surrounding it. Today, businesses can be required to provide similar information to multiple federal departments and agencies. That means more forms, more duplication and more administrative costs. Bill C-39 would create authorities to enable greater information sharing across authorized government institutions to reduce administrative burden and streamline our process. The bill would also support paperless trade by recognizing electronic transferable records in line with international standards. That means more efficient information sharing, less duplication and a streamlined approach to documentation. Bill C-39 also targets approvals themselves. The legislation would establish a transportation project office within Transport Canada to coordinate federal authorizations and consultations for transportation projects. The objective is to provide a clearer pathway for priority transportation infrastructure and support the government’s broader goal of getting projects from application to decision more efficiently. On this point, the bill is clear. I want to go back to the objective of providing a clear federal pathway for priority transportation infrastructure. This brings me back to the time when there was a discussion around the Confederation Bridge connecting Prince Edward Island to the mainland. I was the minister responsible for that megaproject. At the time, it was one of the largest projects in the history of the country. That particular project, started in 1993, was completed ahead of schedule and under budget in 1997. I am unsure if 30 years later, that project would have gotten through the approval process in a timely fashion. It stands as an example of how we do things right and at the same time protect the environment and protect the various interests involved. Looking at Bill C-39, I view it as providing the legislative pathway for ensuring that the projects this country desperately needs, like the Confederation Bridge in 1993, get to the point where they can be approved. The point is not to eliminate reviews. It is to coordinate them. It is not to eliminate standards. It is to reduce duplication. It is not to remove consultation. It is to make federal processes more coherent and predictable while upholding the same standards we are proud to maintain. Canada needs to be able to build faster while continuing to build responsibly. Again, I think back to the Confederation Bridge project. Finally, Bill C-39 recognizes that supply chain resilience depends on security. The bill would modernize Canada’s transportation security clearance framework. It would broaden the roles and functions to which transportation security clearances can apply, enhance risk assessments, improve information sharing and strengthen authorities around granting, refusing, suspending or cancelling clearances. The purpose is to better address complex and evolving threats, because security is a crucial part of supply chain resilience. Taken together, these measures represent a practical and coordinated approach to strengthening the infrastructure and systems that allow Canada’s economy to function. On a micro-scale, allowing Canada’s economy to function is the same as allowing Prince Edward Island’s economy to grow and function, as the Confederation Bridge did in 1997, and it still delivers today. We need to move goods from farms to elevators, from mines to ports, from factories to markets and from our communities to customers around the world. We need transportation networks that can keep pace with the investments we are making and the opportunities in front of us. That means building capacity, but it also means making better use of the capacity we already have. It means having the information necessary to understand how our trade corridors are performing. It means ensuring that our ports have the tools and flexibility needed to grow, and it means ensuring that when we approve and build major transportation projects like the Confederation Bridge, we do so with the coordination and predictability that Canadians expect. That is why strengthening supply chains is fundamentally about strengthening the Canadian economy. It is about building the transportation capacity, coordination and resilience that Canada needs for the economy we are building today and ultimately for the economy we intend to build tomorrow. This is how we build Canada strong.

Private Members' Business ·

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

“I want us to send this bill to committee and pass it. We must stop children from seeing pornography online. A committee can study the bill and make it work well alongside the government's other laws on this issue.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House this afternoon speaking in support of Bill S-209. I want to begin by looking at the journey of how we arrived here. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne. Senator Miville-Dechêne was appointed in 2018. Then, the bill came to the House on two occasions, but because of the calendar, the bill died on the Order Paper. I am going to focus my comments on the process of how we arrived here and one of two routes this chamber can take for where the bill would go from here. Most would agree we are at a time when Canadians are looking to parliamentarians to come together on certain issues, and this should be one of those issues. All parliamentarians would agree that the House should take steps to prevent very young children from accessing pornography online. I have been listening to a number of previous speakers. The parliamentary secretary, in his comments, said the government supports the objective of the bill, which is extremely important, and I would expect all members sitting in this chamber do. One of the benefits of Parliament is the diverse basis of opinion that comes to debate in the House and the recognition that each member brings a particular area that they focus on. When the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake approached me this past spring to say that she was going to sponsor this particular Senate bill in the House and ask if I would consider supporting it, I reflected for a moment. I will acknowledge that there are probably numerous topics that the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake and I do not agree on, but on this matter, I will be clear. One thing the member is very passionate about and uncompromising about is the protection of children, family and her children. I see that from time to time because the member brings her children to the committee room from time to time, so I was not surprised that the member would choose in particular a bill like Bill S-209 as her private member’s bill. The bill gives us all sides. We have heard from one other opposition party in the House that is supportive of the bill’s getting to committee. The committee is the process for all legislation to get a thorough analysis and a good review. Changes that are required from time to time can be made there, as members are aware. Therefore, I had no hesitation in indicating that I would be supportive of Bill S-209. Again, I doubt that there would be any member in the chamber who would not be supportive of the objectives of Bill S-209. At the same time, I am well aware that the government has introduced two pieces of legislation, Bill C-34 and Bill C-36. Some will say they are more comprehensive in the area being addressed by this particular private member’s bill, but all are aiming in the same direction of putting real consequences on those who choose to make decisions that allow young people access to pornography. My sense is that there is a very general understanding of and support for the context of this particular private member’s bill. I, for one, as I indicated, will be supporting the bill when it comes back to the House for a vote. I look forward to it getting to committee so that witnesses can appear and the committee can do a very thorough analysis of the bill. As I indicated in my earlier comments, Bill S-209, Bill C-34 and Bill C-36 are leading in a direction that all members of this chamber, I assume, will be supportive of. However, the ability to be supportive of and have a candid debate on all aspects of the legislation is extremely important. Bill S-209, in my opinion, deserves to get to a stage where it gets a more thorough analysis, which would be in the committee format. That is why I will be supporting it. There will be some discussion about the impact on government legislation versus private members’ legislation, but to my earlier comments, this is one subject that all members of this House should come together on and support to ensure that this particular bill gets before a committee so that it might have the opportunity to complement government legislation and make it better in some places. I believe my time is coming to an end, but the bill speaks for itself. I am in agreement with the commentary made by the speakers who spoke to the bill earlier. I am looking forward to hearing more debate.

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26

“I want the minister to explain how this housing bill fits into our bigger housing plan.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain how Bill C-26 is part of the overall housing plan in this country, which Canadians are expecting?

Statements by Members ·

Athlete Congratulations

“I want to congratulate Abby Hustler. She is the first hockey player from Prince Edward Island drafted into the Professional Women's Hockey League.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to pay tribute to a remarkable young Prince Edward Island athlete, Abby Hustler. Over the last number of years, Abby has excelled as a hockey player. She played with the PWHL Minnesota Frost, now drafted by the expansion Hamilton team. Abby is the first Islander drafted to the Professional Women’s Hockey League. In my Egmont riding, the enthusiasm is enormous. In fact, there is a debate among several communities that all claim Abby as their own: St. Louis, Ebbsfleet and Miminegash. Everybody wants to say “we knew her when”, and I know Abby’s parents, Paul and April, are absolutely thrilled with Abby’s accomplishments and career. Beyond those great local rivalries, one fact remains: Abby is a wonderful example of everything a young person from a small community can accomplish. She is a great role model for thousands of Islanders. I am looking forward to attending Abby Day on July 4 in Miminegash, her hometown.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Conservatives often talk about cutting all taxes. How would it hurt rural development if the government stopped funding economic projects across the country?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives often go to great lengths in the House to speak about eliminating all taxes. As a member from rural Canada, could the member explain what impact it would have on many development opportunities in rural areas if the government was not there to support economic opportunity all across this country?

Private Members' Business ·

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

“I support this bill. Rural Canadians have poor cell phone service, and phone companies must be held accountable. People in rural areas need reliable cell service for emergency safety, running businesses, seeing doctors online, and going to school.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to second debate on this important bill, Bill C-268, an act regarding the spectrum policy framework for Canada. While the title may seem dry, the intent of this legislation is very clear. We must take steps now to ensure accountability in the provision of cellular services. In part, this must be done because the day-to-day safety of millions of Canadians must be protected. Further, equal access to high-quality and dependable cellular services is absolutely fundamental to the success of thousands of businesses across our country. For those reasons, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, for bringing this matter forward. Like myself and dozens of other members in the House, the member for Compton—Stanstead has heard from many constituents that cellular phone service in many rural areas is poor and unreliable. This is unacceptable, and I share the frustration of constituents in my constituency of Egmont. Time after time, I have had phone calls that are dropped mid-sentence or connections that simply cannot be made. I have heard from residents who have had calls interrupted during medical emergencies, and far too many small businesses have told me about lost opportunities due to inadequate service. As a public representative, I have spent my career focusing on the value of infrastructure. In my mind, the availability of high-quality and dependable infrastructure is the absolute cornerstone of economic and social progress. At its most basic level, of course, infrastructure is about roads, bridges, wharves, environmental protection and buildings. Of course, all these capital projects are absolutely necessary, but there are further levels to the idea of infrastructure. For instance, an appropriately funded education system is an element of social infrastructure, and the same goes for health care. In other words, the laws, regulations and policies that underpin our extraordinarily important social programs are a form of infrastructure. What makes all of this so attractive and important to me as a public representative is that the benefits that accrue from a great deal of our infrastructure, whether physical or written, are generally available to all citizens equally and without cost or favour. In the case of cellular phones, our job is to ensure that these services are provided to Canadians in an equal manner, so that running a small phone-based business in my home community of Tignish is on par with running a similar operation in Toronto or Vancouver. In other words, a phone call is a phone call. It should not degenerate in quality just because a Canadian chooses to live outside of a major urban centre. As every member should understand, there are undeniable challenges to living in a rural area. There are fewer amenities. There is travel for shopping. Entertainment and work are often a bit of a long haul, and waiting for a snowplow in the winter often requires a degree of patience and planning, but these challenges are all understood, and the benefits of rural life usually outweigh those minor inconveniences. Inadequate cell phone service is not a minor inconvenience, not anymore. Reliable cellular service has now evolved into a basic, fundamental necessity. In other words, reliable cellular connectivity is now an essential that supports so much of what many Canadians take for granted, such as safety, economic development, health care services, education and social connection. Let me start with safety. My constituency is a little different from many of the more remote Canadian communities. Generally speaking, we will never be too far from a house, village, town or community, but many parts of Canada experience extremely harsh weather conditions and long stretches of empty highways. I, for one, would not want to be travelling up north in February without a reliable form of communication. In such conditions, the ability to make a call save a life. Of course, there is the economic aspect as well. As the proposed bill points out in its preamble, equal access to cellular service is currently being undermined, and that is deeply unfair to the millions of Canadians who live in rural areas. In my community of Egmont, all of the sectors that drive our thriving economy rely on cellular service, including agriculture, fishing and tourism. All of these incredibly important sectors need to communicate to the wider world because their customers all have high expectations. Imagine trying to negotiate a deal with one of our valued trading partners in Europe, and the call keeps buzzing and dropping. An awful lot can get lost in translation, and even more can get lost if the customer simply decides the hassle is just not worth it. We have emergencies and economic links, then, but there is also health care. In my home province of Prince Edward Island, there is an extremely severe health care crisis under way. On the federal side, we have provided the provincial government with hundreds of millions of dollars to address significant shortfalls in access to health care. The province assured the federal government that this additional funding would solve the crisis and that barriers to access would fall immediately after the money was committed. This did not happen. Despite the sincere efforts of the federal government, the situation has become worse. One solution is virtual care, but what happens when the connectivity is poor? Well, the answer to that question is fairly simple. Once again, the residents of rural areas face a barrier to health care, and the misery of inadequate access to services is worsened again. Finally, I will turn briefly to education. I am a great believer in making sure that high-quality education programs are easily accessible to all Canadians. As the new technologies began to emerge some years ago, I listened to young residents in Egmont talk happily about being able to access important new skills from the comfort of their home communities. As we all learned during COVID, distance learning was absolutely essential. Today, however, we see the difference in access to many programs widening. There is a gap, and students in major metropolitan areas have another major advantage over their rural counterparts. Is this fair? Is this equal? Of course not, and it is infuriating to many rural Canadians. Ultimately, appropriate cellphone service is essential to the future of rural Canada. It enhances safety, supports economic activity, improves access to health care and education, and strengthens social ties. As technology continues to evolve, the importance of reliable mobile connectivity will only grow. Ensuring that rural communities have access to high-quality cell service is not just a matter of convenience but essential for equality, opportunity and quality of life across Canada. This is why I support this important bill.